The Role of Feedback in Enhancing Students’ Learning Experience: An Evaluation of Student Perspectives and Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feedback is a key element in the development of students' understanding and evolution in their learning process. Students receive feedback in so many forms; peer feedback; critiques; instructor feedback: graded or ungraded; external feedback from employers or other industries, etc. For this feedback to be valuable, students need to appreciate it, act on it and consider it as part of the learning process. The literature shows that there is a discrepancy between what instructors target with this feedback and how the students perceive it for their learning improvement. Mostly, students tend to focus on grades rather than reflect on the feedback and take actions to improve their learning. Even when instructors give detailed personalized comments in students' delivered work, the students may not reflect and take actions unless the reflection is part of the grading process. This paper conducts a review of the different types of feedback students receive in their undergraduate studies in five different programs: architectural engineering, civil engineering, engineering technology management, environmental engineering and geological engineering. In addition, a survey is administered to students to understand feedback techniques used in engineering undergraduate programs. In the survey, students reflect on the types of feedback they received, and indicate which types of feedback they believe are most effective in their learning development. The survey also evaluates how the perception of effectiveness of the type of feedback is influenced by demographic factors. This paper discusses the first stage of the research project. The next stage includes developing an information session for students that is informed by the survey results and the literature. The information session aims at providing students an understanding of how to utilize different types of feedback. Students will then be interviewed a year later to determine if their perception of feedback and how they use it has changed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".